Philosopher Discovers Problem in Global Patent Laws

Dr. Mo Abolkheir, a philosopher specializing in inventions and patents, identified a logical fallacy – a flawed argument that may seem valid but is based on faulty reasoning – in the law.

Published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and PracticeDr. Abolkheir’s editorial identifies a logical error inherent in the “non-obviousness” requirement of patent law, a flaw that has gone unnoticed until now.

Dr. Abolkheir called this the fallacy of inventio ad hominem, a variation of the classic ad hominem fallacy, an example of which is the sports analogy of playing the man rather than the ball. He explains that patent offices, when evaluating the patentability of an invention, inadvertently look at the cognitive abilities of the inventor rather than the invention itself. He suggests that this introduces a dangerous subjectivity into the process, in terms of varying indirect interpretations of an inventor’s intellectual ability, rather than the technical merits of the invention.

“Inconsistency in the patent examination process has made patents more vulnerable to invalidation after they are granted, compromising their economic value and jeopardizing the businesses that rely on them,” explained Dr. Abolkheir, based in the Faculty of Science and Engineering.

“Patents are supposed to be reliable intangible assets upon which investments and businesses rely. This logical fallacy has compromised their reliability.”

In his study, Dr. Abolkheir raises concerns about the potential interaction between advances in AI and the current broken patent system. He warns that if the fallacy of inventio ad hominem is not corrected, the growing power of AI could exacerbate existing problems, making patent applications increasingly difficult to grant and granted patents more likely to be revoked.

“AI is an incredible tool for innovation, but we need to fix the logical flaw in the system before letting AI run wild,” he added.

Dr Abolkheir is currently working on an alternative to the “non-obviousness” test using a new framework and his immediate aim is to generate critical debate on reform of the patent system. “Recognizing the logical fallacy is the first step to making patents reliable again,” he said, urging policymakers, legal professionals and inventors to engage in dialogue on the future of patent law .

He concluded: “Further research is needed to find an alternative to non-obviousness, such as the half-causality framework that I will present elsewhere, which resolves the logical fallacy, provides more objectivity, and controls the risk of l ‘AI.

“But recognizing the existence of this logical fallacy is a necessary preliminary step, and one that should spark much-needed debate about reforming the patent system.”